Zuckerruebensirup

quote:Originally posted by Geo Quest: You place a cache with a 100 bucks in it. It also has a bill charging the cache finder 100 dollars for your time in placing it? So basically you're saying you want your money back. I'd say, even after your explaination, Geo Quest would be expecting to find a hundred DOLLARS in the cache, not just a 'bill' for finding it. I voted that I think it would be funny. (Anyone who seriously thinks someone is going to be willing to put $100 in a cache, and continually replace it, doesn't have a firm grasp on reality.) ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by CYBret: By the way, if you've never been to Michigan, one of the most entertaining things they've got is the bottle/can return machines in the grocery stores. I could have stood there for hours and watched the things! You amuse easily, I see! (Watching the bottle return machines isn't NEARLY as entertaining as watching the dandelions sprout overnight.)

quote:Originally posted by CYBret: By the way, if you've never been to Michigan, one of the most entertaining things they've got is the bottle/can return machines in the grocery stores. I could have stood there for hours and watched the things! You amuse easily, I see! (Watching the bottle return machines isn't NEARLY as entertaining as watching the dandelions sprout overnight.)

Due to the fact this is a perishible item, I'm hoping to see "Hey, Vern!" get moved to the Oakland, IL, area (from Marshall, MI), as quickly as possible. If any of you happen to live near this route, and might be able to help speed Vern on his way, your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Keep your eye out for him in a cache near you! ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

Due to the fact this is a perishible item, I'm hoping to see "Hey, Vern!" get moved to the Oakland, IL, area (from Marshall, MI), as quickly as possible. If any of you happen to live near this route, and might be able to help speed Vern on his way, your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Keep your eye out for him in a cache near you! ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by CYBret: Anyone here from an area where Vernors Gingerale is available? quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: Yeppers! It's not real gingerale unless it's Vernors®! Shall I add a travel bug to a bottle, and send it out to find you? (Hmmm...I wonder what it would taste like after freezing, thawing, and hitting 110° a couple of times.) quote:Originally posted by CYBret: It would taste like HEAVEN! Didn't you ever drink it warm when you had the flu? And don't even get me started about Vernors floats! The only problem is that you have to warn Vernors neophytes about the bubbles. I don't know how many times I've had to tell people, "Don't breathe in while you're sipping it." Only to watch them choke and cough and sputter. Makin' me thirsty. Get your taste buds ready...because a nice warm flu-fighting bottle of the stuff is on its way to a cache near you. [This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on May 30, 2002 at 08:25 PM.]

quote:Originally posted by CYBret: Anyone here from an area where Vernors Gingerale is available? quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: Yeppers! It's not real gingerale unless it's Vernors®! Shall I add a travel bug to a bottle, and send it out to find you? (Hmmm...I wonder what it would taste like after freezing, thawing, and hitting 110° a couple of times.) quote:Originally posted by CYBret: It would taste like HEAVEN! Didn't you ever drink it warm when you had the flu? And don't even get me started about Vernors floats! The only problem is that you have to warn Vernors neophytes about the bubbles. I don't know how many times I've had to tell people, "Don't breathe in while you're sipping it." Only to watch them choke and cough and sputter. Makin' me thirsty. Get your taste buds ready...because a nice warm flu-fighting bottle of the stuff is on its way to a cache near you. [This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on May 30, 2002 at 08:25 PM.]

quote:Originally posted by cachew nut: "-------snipped for brevity------" Hey...brevity is against my religion. How about let's get on a religious debate next? This current banter is starting to get old. Pretty soon I'll have to resort to my dictionary to dig up some long, impressive-sounding words, just to keep things interesting.

quote:Originally posted by cachew nut: "-------snipped for brevity------" Hey...brevity is against my religion. How about let's get on a religious debate next? This current banter is starting to get old. Pretty soon I'll have to resort to my dictionary to dig up some long, impressive-sounding words, just to keep things interesting.

quote:Posted by ClayJar on May 30, 2002 03:30 PM: Actually, although I hate to jump in the line of fire, Z. was *not* the one who originally posted the middle ground quote you included; rather, it was I. Oops, there I go again...not checking the updates before I hit that SEND button. - Zuck "Not exactly the quickest typist in the world...but maybe the longest winded."

quote:Originally posted by ClayJar: There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone. quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Hmm ... there must be a word missing there, but that is not now, nor ever was "the middle ground." That would be called "acquiesing to one polarized position." I don't about missing words, but you did mis-assign the quote. It wasn't me that said it, it was ClayJar. But to agree with his point, how is it NOT middle ground? SOME caches would have coordinates revealed to all, and OTHERS would have them restricted. That is somewhere in between showing ALL coordinates to everyone, or restrictring ALL coordinates from non-registrees. I'm confused as to why you are so against allowing cache placers to have a choice in how their own cache information is shared. Perhaps a "middle ground" that you could live with (and so could I), is allowing Paying Members the option of placing "Description open to all, but coordinates to registered users only" caches. (DOTABCTRUO caches? ) A "pay to receive enhanced control over your cache information" policy. Works for me! Maybe it would encourage more people to sign up for memberships...then everybody (even Jeremy) could gain. (Well, everyone except for the anti-registrees, that is...poor misunderstood souls that they are.)

quote:Originally posted by ClayJar: There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone. quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Hmm ... there must be a word missing there, but that is not now, nor ever was "the middle ground." That would be called "acquiesing to one polarized position." I don't about missing words, but you did mis-assign the quote. It wasn't me that said it, it was ClayJar. But to agree with his point, how is it NOT middle ground? SOME caches would have coordinates revealed to all, and OTHERS would have them restricted. That is somewhere in between showing ALL coordinates to everyone, or restrictring ALL coordinates from non-registrees. I'm confused as to why you are so against allowing cache placers to have a choice in how their own cache information is shared. Perhaps a "middle ground" that you could live with (and so could I), is allowing Paying Members the option of placing "Description open to all, but coordinates to registered users only" caches. (DOTABCTRUO caches? ) A "pay to receive enhanced control over your cache information" policy. Works for me! Maybe it would encourage more people to sign up for memberships...then everybody (even Jeremy) could gain. (Well, everyone except for the anti-registrees, that is...poor misunderstood souls that they are.)

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Define "our" Actually, I think my error was in the "duty" part, rather than the "our": Our primary concern should be for the current cachers, rather than the potential ones. Really, we have no duty at all (apparently not even in registering to the site, or logging our finds)...except to give feedback to the administrators as to how we feel about the site. quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:If we give cache places a choice ... I meant to say, "cache placers" rather than cache places. Many apologies for the typo. (I'm sure you never make any. ) And if you geniunely misunderstood my meaning, and weren't just taking advantage of an opportunity to be sarcastic, then I apologize for confusing you. quote:I say "Let them place MOCs" or refrain from placing caches if they are that paranoid that their cache might be plundered. Some of us don't want to restrict our caches from the general geocaching.com population, but only from the non-registrees. (Personally, I think a large majority of plundering is from accidental finds, not from deliberate searches with GPSr's. MY main motivation is to thin out some of the trolling. "If you want to play, then sign up. If you don't want to sign up, then go play somewhere else.")

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Define "our" Actually, I think my error was in the "duty" part, rather than the "our": Our primary concern should be for the current cachers, rather than the potential ones. Really, we have no duty at all (apparently not even in registering to the site, or logging our finds)...except to give feedback to the administrators as to how we feel about the site. quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:If we give cache places a choice ... I meant to say, "cache placers" rather than cache places. Many apologies for the typo. (I'm sure you never make any. ) And if you geniunely misunderstood my meaning, and weren't just taking advantage of an opportunity to be sarcastic, then I apologize for confusing you. quote:I say "Let them place MOCs" or refrain from placing caches if they are that paranoid that their cache might be plundered. Some of us don't want to restrict our caches from the general geocaching.com population, but only from the non-registrees. (Personally, I think a large majority of plundering is from accidental finds, not from deliberate searches with GPSr's. MY main motivation is to thin out some of the trolling. "If you want to play, then sign up. If you don't want to sign up, then go play somewhere else.")

quote:Originally posted by ClayJar: In the quote above, Zuckerruebensirup brings up a theoretical case of a person, whom he refers to as a troll, who would have searched for a cache but not logged it online. With the requested change being discussed here, that person would not have searched for the cache at all, and therefore the percentage of finds logged online would theoretically increase. Zuckerruebensirup considers this a good thing and uses it as a justification of making the requested change. People seem to keep overlooking my other points. The perception of security will ease some people's minds...and make them feel more comfortable about placing caches. Also, not ALL of the previous trolls (ok, ok...let's call them 'non-registerees') will go away and be 'lost' to the community...some will take the 30 extra seconds and register. (Obviously, there's no way to measure how many of either of those there will be. On the other hand, there's no way of measuring how many (if any at all) additional caches any current users will place due to their new sense of comfort, either. It's all guesswork. quote:The opposing ideology, on the other hand, holds that the goal of geocaching is to provide an open experience for any and all who would like to play. {Quick interjection here:} Registration is FREE. It doesn't restrict ANYONE who wants to play. (It can also be done fairly anonymously.) quote:In that view, the case of someone searching for a cache but not logging it online is a loss to the community, as their experiences are not shared with the rest of us. However, if they were to be prevented from even searching, not only would the community lose the benefit of their logs, but now they also would lose the benefit of the community. This would be a very bad thing, and is considered adequate justification for _not_ making the requested change. Believe it or not, I can actually relate with this side of the debate. (Which is why I especially like the suggestion of allowing each cache placer the option of choosing whether their coordinates will be restricted.) The reason I posted my poll on this subject was to get a feel for the consensus of the group. I appreciate opposing opinions. They help me see a wider perspective...they help me grow...they force me to re-evaluate my own stand...and sometimes even cause me to change my mind. What I DON'T appreciate is the condescending tone that a certain poster often uses in many of his responses. I know I need to learn to not let his attitude (or my perception of it, at least) get to me...but I feel that ignoring the remarks, rather than countering them, will by omission imply that I agree with them. That goes against my grain. I'm of the opinion that those kinds of people need to get a taste of their own medicine every now and again. I apologize to everyone else who has to sit and listen to the bantering back and forth...and welcome you to e-mail me with a "Look...just let it go, ok? You're being as annoying as he is, for crying out loud!" kind of note...and if anyone does, I'll shut up, and let it go. (Or perhaps send my responses through e-mail instead of posting them here...so not everyone has to endure them.) quote:There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone. Those that consider non-loggers trolls will not like the fact that Geocaching.com is still feeding them, Not true! (at least not in MY case, anyway)...If you want to feed them with YOUR caches, I don't have a problem with that at all. But I'd like to have the choice for my own caches. Also, I like the idea that there will still be visible coordinates out there for those who want to "try it out" before committing. (They just won't have to be MY caches. It's already been established what a self-centered person I am, afterall. I've got a reputation to keep up, you know. ) quote:and those who consider Geocaching.com an open community for the benefit of even its dysfunctional members will not like the fact that part of the community is now cut off. Part of the community isn't cut off from anything that they don't CHOOSE to be cut off from. And no one would be completely cut off...even if they were unwilling to register. (Not unless ALL cache hiders opted for the "hide coordinates" choice, that is...which would seem pretty silly after all this arguing against allowing them to be hidden.) quote:Still, if any consensus can be reached, this is likely the only viable option. And a very GOOD one, in my opinion. (Interestingly, though...of the two polls I posted, a higher percentage of people seem to be for restricting the coordinates across the board than in giving the option to each cache owner.) quote:Anyway, can we of both persuasions just put the pies down and sit back down at the table now? Or how about just some ice cream to go with the pie?

quote:Originally posted by ClayJar: In the quote above, Zuckerruebensirup brings up a theoretical case of a person, whom he refers to as a troll, who would have searched for a cache but not logged it online. With the requested change being discussed here, that person would not have searched for the cache at all, and therefore the percentage of finds logged online would theoretically increase. Zuckerruebensirup considers this a good thing and uses it as a justification of making the requested change. People seem to keep overlooking my other points. The perception of security will ease some people's minds...and make them feel more comfortable about placing caches. Also, not ALL of the previous trolls (ok, ok...let's call them 'non-registerees') will go away and be 'lost' to the community...some will take the 30 extra seconds and register. (Obviously, there's no way to measure how many of either of those there will be. On the other hand, there's no way of measuring how many (if any at all) additional caches any current users will place due to their new sense of comfort, either. It's all guesswork. quote:The opposing ideology, on the other hand, holds that the goal of geocaching is to provide an open experience for any and all who would like to play. {Quick interjection here:} Registration is FREE. It doesn't restrict ANYONE who wants to play. (It can also be done fairly anonymously.) quote:In that view, the case of someone searching for a cache but not logging it online is a loss to the community, as their experiences are not shared with the rest of us. However, if they were to be prevented from even searching, not only would the community lose the benefit of their logs, but now they also would lose the benefit of the community. This would be a very bad thing, and is considered adequate justification for _not_ making the requested change. Believe it or not, I can actually relate with this side of the debate. (Which is why I especially like the suggestion of allowing each cache placer the option of choosing whether their coordinates will be restricted.) The reason I posted my poll on this subject was to get a feel for the consensus of the group. I appreciate opposing opinions. They help me see a wider perspective...they help me grow...they force me to re-evaluate my own stand...and sometimes even cause me to change my mind. What I DON'T appreciate is the condescending tone that a certain poster often uses in many of his responses. I know I need to learn to not let his attitude (or my perception of it, at least) get to me...but I feel that ignoring the remarks, rather than countering them, will by omission imply that I agree with them. That goes against my grain. I'm of the opinion that those kinds of people need to get a taste of their own medicine every now and again. I apologize to everyone else who has to sit and listen to the bantering back and forth...and welcome you to e-mail me with a "Look...just let it go, ok? You're being as annoying as he is, for crying out loud!" kind of note...and if anyone does, I'll shut up, and let it go. (Or perhaps send my responses through e-mail instead of posting them here...so not everyone has to endure them.) quote:There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone. Those that consider non-loggers trolls will not like the fact that Geocaching.com is still feeding them, Not true! (at least not in MY case, anyway)...If you want to feed them with YOUR caches, I don't have a problem with that at all. But I'd like to have the choice for my own caches. Also, I like the idea that there will still be visible coordinates out there for those who want to "try it out" before committing. (They just won't have to be MY caches. It's already been established what a self-centered person I am, afterall. I've got a reputation to keep up, you know. ) quote:and those who consider Geocaching.com an open community for the benefit of even its dysfunctional members will not like the fact that part of the community is now cut off. Part of the community isn't cut off from anything that they don't CHOOSE to be cut off from. And no one would be completely cut off...even if they were unwilling to register. (Not unless ALL cache hiders opted for the "hide coordinates" choice, that is...which would seem pretty silly after all this arguing against allowing them to be hidden.) quote:Still, if any consensus can be reached, this is likely the only viable option. And a very GOOD one, in my opinion. (Interestingly, though...of the two polls I posted, a higher percentage of people seem to be for restricting the coordinates across the board than in giving the option to each cache owner.) quote:Anyway, can we of both persuasions just put the pies down and sit back down at the table now? Or how about just some ice cream to go with the pie?

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Any login requirement to view full cache descriptions (meaning: coordinates included) would probably turn off or scare away a significant number of potential participants. How many people would you deem it "acceptable" to turn off to the sport in an attempt to save a minimal number of caches from being plundered? Those who intend to act with malfeasance will create their phony accounts, get any information they want, and plunder at will. Now that you've had the time to look up the word, you might try responding to the actual point. You might try reading some of the previous posts, to see where your point has already been responded to. But to save you that effort, how about if I recap for you? (Or at least share my take on it...you might want to still review the points made by others...there were some good ones.) In your "point" you propose to compare the "significant number" of potential participates who will be scared away by having to register...to the "minimal number" of caches being saved from plundering. Let's see...who was recently suggesting to whom that they should get some statistics? How about teaching by example? Besides, if you read my previous posts, you would see that it's not just the "actual" reduction in plundered caches that matters, but also the "perception" of security that would ease some people's minds enough to place more caches that actually counts. As for a certain number of the bullies (errr...excuse me, those with maleficent intent) who will still sign up for phony accounts so they can go out and plunder caches...of course there will be some. (I will never cease to be amazed at the efforts people put into doing mean things that they don't get any benefit in other than the 'pleasure' of knowing they hurt someone. Imagine how much better place this world would be if they put those efforts into doing something productive. But that's a topic for a whole different place.) You may have missed it, but I never implied that this change would solve all of this site's problems...but that it would be a "step in the right direction". If we refused to make any change that isn't a "perfect" solution, then we'd get nowhere...and the game would stagnate and die.

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Any login requirement to view full cache descriptions (meaning: coordinates included) would probably turn off or scare away a significant number of potential participants. How many people would you deem it "acceptable" to turn off to the sport in an attempt to save a minimal number of caches from being plundered? Those who intend to act with malfeasance will create their phony accounts, get any information they want, and plunder at will. Now that you've had the time to look up the word, you might try responding to the actual point. You might try reading some of the previous posts, to see where your point has already been responded to. But to save you that effort, how about if I recap for you? (Or at least share my take on it...you might want to still review the points made by others...there were some good ones.) In your "point" you propose to compare the "significant number" of potential participates who will be scared away by having to register...to the "minimal number" of caches being saved from plundering. Let's see...who was recently suggesting to whom that they should get some statistics? How about teaching by example? Besides, if you read my previous posts, you would see that it's not just the "actual" reduction in plundered caches that matters, but also the "perception" of security that would ease some people's minds enough to place more caches that actually counts. As for a certain number of the bullies (errr...excuse me, those with maleficent intent) who will still sign up for phony accounts so they can go out and plunder caches...of course there will be some. (I will never cease to be amazed at the efforts people put into doing mean things that they don't get any benefit in other than the 'pleasure' of knowing they hurt someone. Imagine how much better place this world would be if they put those efforts into doing something productive. But that's a topic for a whole different place.) You may have missed it, but I never implied that this change would solve all of this site's problems...but that it would be a "step in the right direction". If we refused to make any change that isn't a "perfect" solution, then we'd get nowhere...and the game would stagnate and die.

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: I didn't leave off anything of substance. The two processes are not interdependent ... they do not corelate. To corelate one with the other is kind of silly. Here's how they relate: If anonymous person "A" refuses to register to the site because he is paranoid that Big Brother will be looking over his shoulder, then he obviously CAN'T log any of his finds online. If the site requires log-on to VIEW the cache coordinates (and person "A" is still too paranoid) then he won't be looking for and finding any caches. (Or "not many" I should say...perhaps he could triangulate, or use parking coordinates and/or clues to look for a few...but he would be seeking significantly fewer caches, anyway.) If this is only true for ONE troll...and he would currently only have ever looked for (and found) ONE cache, than is ONE cache currently found but not logged. If that same would-be troll now is looking for ZERO caches (and there's still zero logs from him), then the percentage just increased. And while any guess as to exactly how many similar trolls would be turned away would be just a guess, I think it's safe to say that it would be more than one. (The "nothing of substance" portion of my statement that you left off was my admission that while the two ARE related, obviously there's still room for some people to register to FIND caches, but to still refuse to give back by logging their finds. So the relationship isn't one to one.) On the other hand, as other people have mentioned, there are some people who want to "try out" geocaching before registering, and once they decide they like it, go on to register. If we require registration to view the coordinates, some will go ahead and register (where they otherwise would have waited)...not really a big impact. Others will NOT try it out (who otherwise would have later become registered geocachers), and they would count toward the "lost cachers" as a result of the change. Again, any guesses as to how large that number is, would be just that, a guess. But in my opinion, our first duty is to the CURRENT cachers and supporters of the site, not to the "potential" ones. (The change wouldn't limit ANYONE from participating if they choose to...so it isn't an elitist or discriminatory measure.) On the other hand, if current players feel more comfortable about placing caches (even if that perception is just in their head), and more caches get placed as a result...then everyone has more caches to look for...including the potential new players. If we give cache places a choice of whether to restrict their coordinates or not, it seems that both sides could be satisfied...and everyone benefits. quote:Hey, you're the one attempting to tie two unrelated issues together. I just thought I'd offer you a solution as ludicrous as your premise. If you think the two compare, that's your prerogative. Obviously we have different perspectives. That's what makes discussion interesting.

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Precisely how can you "do something about it" if the site owner doesn't happen to agree that your issue is urgent ... or even worthy of consideration? If enough people express an interest in having a Hide/Display option when placing caches, perhaps Jeremy will decide that its worthy of consideration.

quote:Originally posted by BruceS: Doing something that might prevent a new person from becoming involved in geocaching will mean less caches not more. If they don't become involved by trying it out they will not placing any new caches either. If someone is too paranoid to sign up for an account, then they can't place (or at least submit a cache page for) ANY caches. How is scaring those people off going to decrease the number of caches placed? (Maybe it'll only effect the number of unlogged finds on the existing caches.) On the other hand, if people are more comfortable about placing caches that only "serious" caches can get the coordinates to, maybe they'll place MORE caches...for all of us to find. I still think allowing the cache owners the option of whether or not to hide their coordinates from unregistered users is the best solution for everyone. Then there will still be some caches out there for people to "try out" the sport on, and decide whether to register...but people who aren't comfortable with it won't have to display them unless the user is logged in.

quote:Originally posted by BruceS: Doing something that might prevent a new person from becoming involved in geocaching will mean less caches not more. If they don't become involved by trying it out they will not placing any new caches either. If someone is too paranoid to sign up for an account, then they can't place (or at least submit a cache page for) ANY caches. How is scaring those people off going to decrease the number of caches placed? (Maybe it'll only effect the number of unlogged finds on the existing caches.) On the other hand, if people are more comfortable about placing caches that only "serious" caches can get the coordinates to, maybe they'll place MORE caches...for all of us to find. I still think allowing the cache owners the option of whether or not to hide their coordinates from unregistered users is the best solution for everyone. Then there will still be some caches out there for people to "try out" the sport on, and decide whether to register...but people who aren't comfortable with it won't have to display them unless the user is logged in.

quote:Originally posted by ClayJar: [Final Cache] ... look for the holy stump. Would that be the one that has a cross engraved onto it or its silohuette resembles the face of Jesus or something? ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by ClayJar: [Final Cache] ... look for the holy stump. Would that be the one that has a cross engraved onto it or its silohuette resembles the face of Jesus or something? ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy: I don't fit any of these poll categories, as I'm exactly 30. Happy birthday, Fuzzy! ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"